Q&A: Jeffrey Davidow

Jeffrey Davidow, a former U.S. ambassador to Mexico and Venezuela and president of the Institute of the Americas on the University of California San Diego campus, recently returned to San Diego from a two-month leave of absence to serve as a White House adviser on the Summit of the Americas. He sat down last week with the editorial board of The San Diego Union-Tribune. Below is an edited transcript of that interview.

What changes do you see in U.S. policy toward Mexico and Latin America?

I think the Obama people have decided that they're going to obviously maintain the strong emphasis on promoting democracy and responsible government, but will deal with each government, each country [individually] – not on a one-size-fits-all basis.

Does the president still want to reopen NAFTA?

In my view, the idea of reopening the treaty is going to have a whole lot of running room in the U.S. or Canada or Mexico. Is there more that could be done within the context of NAFTA, or in a side agreement, in relation to labor and the environment? Yeah, I think there may be. And we're already seeing – at least on the environment, on energy cooperation and on climate change – a lot more give and take with Mexico.

Mexico has been battered now by the swine flu, on top of everything else. The drug-related violence along the border has now captured everybody's attention. What is Mexico's ability to deal with all of these things, and to continue to make some progress on the economic front? Address the failed-state idea.

This idea that Mexico is on the way to being a failed state – by definition, a country that cannot control itself, that has ceded territory to criminal bands or others – has no validity at all. Look at how the government of Mexico responded to the swine flu. They may have made some mistakes and, indeed, we may have made some mistakes here, too. But here is a government that was able to exercise it's authority throughout the country, take precautions, get people marching in the same direction, a very disciplined and pretty thoughtful response. This is not a weak state. This is not a failed state. Now, in terms of violence, you have two components. You have the upswing in these horrific acts of decapitation and shootouts – much of which is between criminal gangs. That, in itself, is the result of the increased pressure that the government of Mexico has brought on these gangs. What this has caused is great disruption within the cartels. Secondary, tertiary leaders within the cartels are making their grab for power. Other cartels are moving in. So you have these struggles, which result in this horrendous violence – most of which does not affect the average Mexican. However, let me very quickly add, there is also [other] violence in Mexico, some of it quite independent. There's an atmosphere of lawlessness, which results in kidnappings that are not narcotics-related. One of the most pressing issues in Mexico and throughout Central America, throughout the Caribbean, throughout the Andes – this was apparent in conversations at the Summit of the Americas – is public safety. Not counterterrorism, not counter-narcotics, but, “Can my kids get home from school safely?” “Can I go out with my partner or my spouse tonight, to a restaurant downtown, without the fear of being attacked?” As far as spillover, I'm not sure how much of it really exists. I think any sort of feeling that somehow we in San Diego are under great threat from violence, which is principally violence among gang members, in Tijuana – I think that's a stretch.